Create property definitions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: 'one undo step' (matching NOT idempotent), the IMPORTANT availability caveat that unclassified elements never show custom properties, that missing groups are auto-created (createMissingGroups default true), the callable type list, and the exact return shape including warnings. These are real behavioral traits not present in the annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and the critical caveat, then the workflow and return shape. It is dense but every clause carries information; there is minor overlap with the schema's own field descriptions, which slightly inflates length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and no nested-object signal, the description supplies the missing return contract ({results:[...guid, name, group, type, availabilityCount, warnings} | {error}] in input order) and the classification-availability semantics an agent must know to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema only states per-field: that availability governs which classifications see the property, that option sets need enumValues, and that groups are created when missing. It does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameter documentation, but it meaningfully supplements it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates user-defined (custom) properties') and characterizes the scope ('any value type, option sets, defaults, availability per classification'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_property_groups, modify_property_definitions, and set_property_values. An agent can tell immediately what this tool builds.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names a follow-up tool ('Then set values with set_property_values'), which routes the workflow, but it never states when to use this versus modify_property_definitions, delete_property_definitions, or import_property_definitions_xml, nor any preconditions/exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.